Play Nice

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me. They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.

And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.

Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

I’m reading this a lot lately. The Nice-Guy-as-ruse rationalization would be laughable if not for so many women using the trope to explain their misgivings or lack of judgement with a guy that pumped and dumped them. Furthermore, the False-Flag Nice Guy is also a ready-made social convention used to excuse the worst behaviors of women when a man might (albeit immaturely) make a public example of that behavior. Not surprisingly this cad-in-sheep’s-clothing rationale really pisses off the genuine beta Nice Guys, and for exactly the reason less attractive women get upset when their more attractive sisters mistreat the Men they could never hope to pull themselves.

So with this in mind I thought I’d pick apart this meme in detail.

“Nice guys are the real jerks if you ask me.”

When truly nice guys (80-90% of the masculine sphere) read a line like “Nice Guys are the real jerks” something snaps in their heads. Black is white, up is down and Nice Guys are Jerks. Most Nice Guys have been playing the self-internalized Beta Game, identification scenario out for so long that to read something like this is akin to blaspheme. “Great now all these women I’ve been trying to be so nice too (like they all say they want) really think I’m a jerk?” One would think this would be a moment of clarity for the Nice Guy and he’d realize the truth of what his ‘misogynist’ Game-aware friends had been trying to enlighten him about for so long. You’d think, until,..

“They put up a front, acting differently when talking to women, deceiving them into getting them into bed.”

Ah! Well there you have it! They’re really just Alpha cads playing at being nice in order to bed these women ,..how fiendish! Now, not only are women jaded by the players, but they’re also more wary of the ‘Nice’ men due to the players utilizing their own Beta Game. Dammit! The Jerks have poisoned the Nice well!

What they fail to realize is the inherent ridiculousness of the premise – niceties never got a man laid – and of all men, the Nice Guy knows the difficulty of actually consolidating sex upon ‘niceness’. While I have no doubt that many a Game savvy man has gotten laid by misrepresenting himself as being more interested and pleasant than he actually was, it’s understandable that no woman would ever want to admit to her active participation in that deception. Solution? Paint Nice Guys with the broad brush of the Bad Boy Jerk.

“And if they fail to get them in bed with them, they go on the internet and rant about their misogynist views on women.”

Well, we could debate the social implications of women defaulting to the easy epithet of ‘misogynist’, but that’s an old post for me. You know the more I pick this apart the more I have to empathize with the truly Nice Guy; his is a particularly cruel hell. The Nice Guy in this definition isn’t necessarily the Alpha in sheep’s clothing. This is the guy who, most likely, believed he was going about ‘courting’ his woman-to-be by the rules he knows were established as the sensible proper means to arriving at a woman’s intimacy. The fact that he plays by those rules is integral to his sense of not-like-typical-guys uniqueness.

He subscribed to the Sniper Mentality, played friends, and unfortunately after taking his big shot, got rejected by his (most likely ONEitis) target girl. If men of this stripe are one thing, it’s dedicated to their personal investments into a particular girl they know will one day appreciate their stand-out qualities,..some day. What they fail to grasp is that hypergamy doesn’t care about the equity he believes he’s building for a future relationship. That’s one thing to realize when you’re deep into an LTR, but it’s really a lesson that should be learned when you’re the chump trying to prove to your paramour how perfect a boyfriend you’ll be for her – once she’s done fucking the Jerks she can’t get enough of.

This is a tough lesson for a guy who’s ideology about women and dating is virtually a mirror of his ideology on a ‘strong work ethic’. Work hard, pay your dues and you’ll be rewarded compensatory with your efforts. So, again, it’s unsurprising that this guy would get upset (maybe vindictively so) when his ‘dream girl’ proves to him that hypergamy doesn’t care about compensating all his efforts.

“Real men act the same with everyone. They’re not there to put up a front nor do they bitch about their failures with women.”

In the meantime, back in solipsistic girl-world the narrative, as always, continues to revolve implicitly around how his ‘pseudo-niceness’ impacts her reputation and her, now damaged, self-impressions. Because, of course, no genuine Nice Guy would ever feel slighted enough by her rejecting him intimately so as to feel the need to broadcast his displeasure on FaceBook. ‘Real’ Nice Guys would just shut the fuck up and accept her rejection; which then completes the circular fem-logic of being attracted to guys with the wherewithal to stand up for themselves, speak their minds and not stand for the injustice of being sold one message and having another’s intent proved for him. Sometimes, we call those guys Jerks.

You see, behavioristically, what women mischaracterize as ‘nice‘ is usually the male-methodology they misinterpreted when they couldn’t find a way to reject a guy in an efficient fashion. So yeah, Nice Guys, you’re the real Jerks and Alpha Jerks, you’re the truly nice guy’s because you “act the same with everyone.”

Ladies, stop complaining about the sheep when you’re looking for a wolf.

114 responses to “Play Nice”

I suspect that there are more women who truly get upset when it turns out that the guy they slept with wasn’t an alpha, but a nice guy spitting game. Its the sheep in wolf’s clothing that gets these women mad, not the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Remember Kevin? The insignificant three-week fling from my freshman year. The one who started texting me last Saturday night. Well the texting continued all week. Actually, it never stopped. We’re still talking. Right now.

Kevin kept up conversation just as before. He’d ask about my day, complain about his job, take interest in my hobbies, and so on and so forth. Eventually I got used to it and after a few days I was expecting his texts. One day I even initiated the conversation myself, because I knew it was coming anyways. Our conversations were long and detailed. Kevin would send me a text that looked as long as a five paragraph essay (you know, in respect to an iPhone screen). Kevin would double text (you know, when you send a text, don’t get a response and send another about something entirely different). I didn’t understand why this was happening. He wasn’t mentioning hanging out nor was he outright flirting with me.

So, because my 17 year old brother left the state for two weeks, I had to turn to my internship boys for advice. Fun fact: I may be doing this again in the future as it might be more useful to take advice from those who are my age/older than me than from my teen-aged little brother.

Anyways, I told them the situation and simply asked: Why is he texting me?

Of course, I’m not an idiot and I got the answer I expected: He wants to get with you. But why? Why me? And why has he been talking to me all week, why doesn’t he just cut to the chase?

Because, my dear naive little intern, he’s playing the long con.

Apparently, this is a tactic. I had no idea. It makes sense, really. It’s just not something I would have thought about. The long con, in my interpretation, is the act of getting what you want, well, the long way.

Great article as always, Rollo. I’ve been doing a little thinking about this myself lately.

If I may talk directly out of my ass for a moment here…

I sometimes wonder if the true nice guy really isn’t nice at all. He’s nice, not stupid, and he can clearly see where being nice has gotten him in the SMP. Basically, nowhere.

So when the stars align and some chick fresh off a bad-boy breakup has a momentary change of heart and decides to reward the nice guy for his niceness, he gets a little bitter. Yes, he won, but he knows way down deep inside his nice guy heart that it’s only because she’s tired of the carousel for the moment.

He knows she’ll go back, too.

My admittedly not well thought-out theory is that he approaches his new girlfriend with contempt, and though he won’t pump-and-dump her, he just gets what he can until the relationship ends – usually at her hand. He then goes and whines on the internet about hating women, she falsely assigns him the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” label, and life goes on.

A slick player gets in and gets out – and leaves her asking for more. Of course, I think of a player as being something very different from the raw badness of the bad boy.

I really do think women hate nice guys, and I really do think nice guys are some of the biggest misogynists on the planet. Game guys like me may scream and howl on their blogs, but in real life, we keep the ladies interested – even after they’re gone.

Just a thought. Feel free to rip it to shreds. I honestly haven’t come to a full conclusion yet.

If the tingle isn’t there, a man’s sweetest and most sincere gestures will be written off as evil manipulation. But if the tingle is there, then she’ll think everything he does is great, even when he treats her poorly.

It all boils down to the tingle. If it’s there she’ll think he’s wonderful, and if it’s not she’ll think he’s scum. The end.

But it’s fun sometimes to watch the rationalization hamster come up with alternative explanations for this.

Women avoid guys who are nice to them in order to avoid forming emotional bond with any one man.

Why? Women nowadays operate on a prostitute business model. Just like a prostitutes avoids falling for any one guy because it would be disasterous for her business, ladies nowadays are usually dating multiple men and jumping rope to rope and thus recoil from falling in love.

Nice guys are “sticky” emotionally, aloof men are non-stick. No fuss no muss, on to the next.

@Dillon, agreed, but I think that in your identifying that, women who aren’t invested in that model (or think they aren’t) feel the same way as the Nice Guys who think they’re getting short shrift because they believe a select minority are ruining the niceness appeal of their perceived majority.

In other words HB9 demi-whores are ruining men for the rest of them, while fake nice guy cads are spoiling women for the ‘real’ nice guys. They’re both deluded that they aren’t all playing the same commodification game, but that’s the dynamic.

Dillon: I’ve been working for the past 2 years or so on a theory/hypothesis I call “paleogamy”, offset by modern relationships which I call “neogamy”.

It’s been apparent to me from a strong anecdotal correlation that women with high reward lifestyles are unable to secure a long term relationship because they’ve been wired hormonally to seek greater and faster highs. This is also true for men, so I won’t shoot just one side of the crowd.

Consider the urban lifestyle: plenty of options for a fast high — a bar/nightclub, going shopping to one of dozens of stores, tons of restaurants offering “high reward” food, hundreds if not thousands of good looking alpha type males everywhere and even more beta orbiters to help her move apartments.

Whatever it is that is high reward (dopamine/endorphins) and quick to acquire (winning a video game, sending a text and getting a response in seconds) can and does change one’s brain chemistry. Addiction is addiction.

Over the past 2 years, I’ve cut off almost all my urban female contacts and focused on spinning plates with women who live low reward lifestyles: long term goals instead of short term ones, no obvious addictions to club scenes or high intensity shopping, no reality TV addictions, no fast food or haute cuisine.

The verdict, so far? I’m much more happier, and the ladies are MUCH MUCH more happier.

I’m doing a lot of N=1 research that may prove your point: it’s not a prostitute model, though; it’s a fast-reward model. And it’s both sides of the relationship coin that are fucking up their hormones and losing their ability to have non-addictive relationships.

Being a nice guy, being kind and considerate are fundamental values that American society was based on. Giving your neighbor a hand was a big part of the tremendous economic success we have enjoyed over the past couple of centuries. I’m sorry that it has to come to an end.

@Matt, it hasn’t ended. The Nice Guy usually is a farce. There are alpha males who are good guys and not good guys. The nice guy just wants to be liked, and puts up the front that gets that. He will do whatever it is that others want to do, and then become bitter that no one ever does what he wants, even though he didn’t bother to share what he wanted to do. The quintessential nice guy is the the Christian chump who has taken all the preachers teaching to heart, and is trying to sacrificially please everyone. They just end up bitter in the end, because they don’t get recognized for doing what they are supposed to do, and then feel like crap for being bitter, because that isn’t very Christian.

Which is bullshit, because reciprocal altruism is something we understand from infancy. Now, it’s certainly misguided to expect sex for nice behavior; unfortunately, so too is expecting nice behavior back. Of course, using your orbiters for emotional validation or companionship isn’t actually nice or outcome independent, either.

Orbiters actually exacerbate their own problems: male companionship and validation are important to women, but by making it ubiquitously available, they undercut their only ‘USP.’. (Which is not really unique, since everybody is offering it.) Now, I don’t mind being nice to women; I’m a pretty civil guy, and I’ll gladly hold the door for you if you’re right behind me. I’d drive you home if you needed a ride and it was on my way, and I’d be glad to offer advice if someone asks about a subject I know well. Thing is, though, I’m aware that none of it is getting me laid.

I was thinking about this very topic over the weekend — Nice Guys, what defines them, etc.

If I had to pick out the single most important alpha personality trait (other than being a famous winner at something, like a top actor, musician or athlete), it’s that the alpha is fundamentally disinterested in other people’s opinions. He’s concerned least of all with other people’s opinions about him.

Lower-ranked men are always concerned with how others perceive him. He is constantly trying to manipulate those perceptions by reverse-engineering positive responses from people (esp. women).

The beta/omega is intensely self-conscious, is always looking at himself from the perspective of others.

The alpha’s attention is directed outward. He is concerned only with what he thinks of other people, not what they think of him.

Consider, for example, the classic example of a woman criticizing a man. This happens all the time, because it’s what women do. We have a thousand words for it, because it’s so prevalent, like Eskimos having 80 different words for snow. Shit test, bitching, shaming, nagging, scolding, hen-pecking, etc.

A lower-ranked male will typically engage a critical woman on the merits of her criticism. He will engage with the content of a woman’s verbal attacks against him. Why? Because he cares about what she thinks of him.

However, an alpha’s attention is focused outward. He cares about what HE likes, not what others like. He cares about HIS opinions, preferences and reactions to things. When an alpha experiences a woman criticizing him, he thinks, “Wow, this woman is really unpleasant. She’s really angry and shrill.”

An alpha is not exactly insensitive or oblivious to other people’s feelings, in the sense that many alphas are actually very perceptive. hey are not aspies. They can read IOIs, and other people’s motivations very well. TThey just care more about their own reactions to the world than they do about other people’s reactions.

This is why, I think, that sociopaths are often attractive to women — they have a fundamental lack of empathy or concern for others, which sort of mimics alpha-ness in that regard.

You sometimes see this trait being labeled as “outcome-indpendent.” I think a better description for it is that they are “other-people’s-opinions-independent.” An alpha cares about the “outcome” of various situations as much as anyone. They just don’t particularly care how anyone, other than himself, feels about it.

The saddest thing to me in all this, is that women really can get what they desire without any work. They can get attention on dating sites, and in bars just by being there. Their ego can be inflated to huge proportions. When they meet men that truly are in the right SMV range for them, they believe that they are above them. They think that the game can go on forever, and then suddenly its gone. They are settling on a man below their perceived SMV, because they missed the ones that were there for them before. They tend to treat that man poorly, because whether they are right or not, they perceive themselves as being more valuable than him. This is all making very miserable relationships. The digital age has not been good for men and women.

“The saddest thing to me in all this, is that women really can get what they desire without any work. They can get attention on dating sites, and in bars just by being there.”

There’s one thing they can’t get by doing this (simply being as physically attractive as possible with a pleasant and fun personality). Getting dolled up and keeping their asses firm and going to social events It will absolutely work at attracting good men. Always has. Always will.

But the one thing this tactic can’t do is allow them to keep a viable self-image as modern feminist.

Women have been fed the lie of feminism to believe that they shouldn’t want men who are dominant. Now, they are taught to feel ashamed for wanting to attract high-quality men by using only their tits, asses and eyelashes.

It’s what they are made to do, and what they are good at doing. But they feel bad when they do it. So, they have to dress it up with all sorts of empowerment bullshit to compensate.

Interesting. The 26 year old I’ve taken out and have gaming lately suddenly texted me some nonsense that she was so “angry” that her “ex” was being fake nice to her but had an ulterior motive.

It seemed like a shit test. I just texted back, “yah, sounds gay”

But i think there is this other side that women may be looking for jerks but when a jerk acts like a nice guy it’s beta, they see through it.

Congruency is the key.

Also, the pre-game was like this alleged “ex” with girls…after we broke up or got dumped I would always be looking for some premise to get back there, so anything i could scrape together “Hey just saw they had a big car accident in the city where your parents live, hope they’re ok”….

I was a super beta dick.

I think the other side of this post is that girls want consistency, so a jerk is a jerk, or a nice guy is a nice guy, but when they flip flop it’s seen as indecisive on some level.

The only losers in this scenario are the ones who act a certain way expecting results.

Nice guy being nice just because that’s who he is would never feel bad for not getting laid. If he feels bad, he was never nice at his core but was trained to be nice by society. He need to revert back to the asshole he really is.

Being yourself you will win some and lose some. Not being yourself, you will lose both ways.

Just like a nice girl who acts like a slut to seek male attention and then complains all guys treat her like a slut. She is losing both ways. Vice-versa a slut who acts innocent to catch a nice guy and then quickly gets bored and miserable.

The only correct way to be is to start by being yourself and improve (grow) from there.

That makes a lot of sense. I have been trying to puzzle out how to teach my girls that it is the long term reward that they will need to focus on when it comes to finding a man, not the short term. This is a VERY hard thing for a girl to stick to. Dressing sexy, not demure brings about a lot of short term attention but attention that will likely get a girl no long term reward (a good husband as she is likely to be promiscuous by that point). That short term attention is like crack for girls and one hit of it is enough to make working and waiting for the long term goal nearly impossible, especially when one adds following the girl herd into the equation.

“Women avoid guys who are nice to them in order to avoid forming emotional bond with any one man.

***

Nice guys are “sticky” emotionally, aloof men are non-stick. No fuss no muss, on to the next.”

Some women follow that model for various reasons. But I don’t think most women avoid nice guys so as not to get attached. I think the reason is that the nice guys just don’t turn them on. They aren’t attracted to the nice guys. They want to get attached to the attractive alpha.

Retrenched:If the tingle isn’t there, a man’s sweetest and most sincere gestures will be written off as evil manipulation. But if the tingle is there, then she’ll think everything he does is great, even when he treats her poorly.

Bingo on the importance of the tingle-modifier.

And as long as the poor treatment follows some sort of congruent pattern mated to the attitude and “outlook” of the original tingle-induction, it’s fine. Perhaps any incongruency, real or female-imagined/rationalized, indeed then may lead to the sense of being duped and “used”.

But I assume that the original complaint about the ex then was something truly incongruent. The poor treatment should “enable” a man a certain latitude for occasional comfort — as long as it is given in a suitably deniably gruff manner — just to keep the dramatic roller-coaster in motion and oiled.

Phinn:An alpha cares about the “outcome” of various situations as much as anyone. They just don’t particularly care how anyone, other than himself, feels about it.

I’ve always felt that talking about outcome-independence is a bit misleading. Anyone who engages (so to say) on an approach to a personally desirable woman is not truly indifferent of the outcome. If not for any other reason than ego-supporting purposes, no matter how much abundance there is or how tight the inner game. The sense of not seemingly giving a sh1t about the outcome and rolling on then gives that person the value and frame that draws the interest (and at the same time also as an experience helping to nurture the inner game further).

While you’re probably right about “nice guys” playing the long con, recalling from my own occasions orbiting young ladies of various attractions that I had no actual plan of actually closing the deal.

I was (and probably am) so clueless that I was content to bask in the glory of the feminine radiance in any role even as hopeless and unattractive as the beta supplicant. Help you study? Move house? Provide a shoulder to cry on? It was the only way I knew to gain the attention of the objects of my fascination.

A bug may also orbit around an outoor lightbulb on warm summer night. That doesn’t mean that the bug is somehow clever enough to know what to do with that lightbulb. There is no plan or long con. The immature male in western civilization is usually just one of these clueless nice guys orbiting the flame of youthful femininity.

He didn’t choose this instinct. He doesn’t understand it. He has no plan how to resolve it or what to do next.

“I’ve always felt that talking about outcome-independence is a bit misleading. ”

I think so too. Being “outcome indifferent” sounds like a man not caring about his own goals. But alphas are nothing if not goal-oriented.

Here’s what an alpha is indifferent about — other people’s negative opinions of him. That includes (but is not limited to) the occasions when a woman rejects him sexually. An alpha is infinitely more invested in his OWN opinions (of himself and of others) than he is in other people’s feelings about him.

You might have heard that over the weekend since last week Jenna Maury (youtube artist Jenna Marbles, who regularly gets 5 million+ views) ranted about it.

Part of the problem is semantic gymastics with the word “niceguy”. Here’s what I’d do. I’d gather a huge list of words describing male personality and divide them into 4 categories: Nice, fake-nice, jerk, and neutral. For example:

Nice: considerate, patient, cautious, kind (Men you like to have around)

You could populate those lists with dozens of terms, and you’ll probably see a pattern. “Nice” traits tend to be attractive only when displayed by men who are already attractive for other reasons. Fake-nice traits tend to be unattractive. Jerk traits are more likely to be attractive but are also socially shunned. Neutral traits can be attractive.

So an assertive, decisive, muscular man who is kind and considerate with a dose of aggression might count as a genuine “Nice guy” who doesn’t finish last, so long as he’s got enough game to navigate social environments populated by attractive women. Meanwhile a genuine nice guy everyone likes, but who has very few of the attractive neutral traits is going to lose out every time to the aloof, aggressive jerk nobody really likes.

Nearly every “just friends” situation I’ve been in started with a spark of genuine attraction, flirting, usually a subtle come-on. And then, somehow, I failed to act aggressively enough to close the deal. Boom – friend zone. (Of course, a woman would never admit after the fact the fact that she was attracted.)

Because of that, IMO the internet has read far too much into this nice/jerk dualism. Women want what they think is genuine desire, a guy who is so hot for them that his boner’s about to rip through his pants. Reluctance & hesitation is unattractive. A “nice guy” is simply a guy who didn’t have the chestnuts.

I don’t know if ‘nice guys play by the rules’. The rules clearly state it’s on the man to make a move.

I don’t know if ‘nice guys play by the rules’. The rules clearly state it’s on the man to make a move.

The problem with the friendzone thing is that the guys (usually young guys) stuck in this situation often do not know HOW to make the move. They know the big picture rule, but none of the details. They don’t know how to assert themselves sexually in a confident, attractive way so they wind up making some needy beta play which repulses and irritates the girl. This is why guys like Roosh (and Mystery) give game advice all the way up to the bang.

Because of that, IMO the internet has read far too much into this nice/jerk dualism. Women want what they think is genuine desire, a guy who is so hot for them that his boner’s about to rip through his pants. Reluctance & hesitation is unattractive. A “nice guy” is simply a guy who didn’t have the chestnuts.

The right track I think, but an oversimplification (see my previous post). You are right about the genuine desire thing vs. reluctance and hesitation, but sometimes that’s just a bullshit rationalization to cover up the real attraction generated by asshole behavior. An alpha that puts down other men just for the fun of it, because he can get away with it, is a jerk. But the act of doing that is going to attract many women, even many of those who will swear up and down they are not.

“I’ve always felt that talking about outcome-independence is a bit misleading. ”

Ya, that’s an interesting idea to think about.

I think there are many mistaken assumptions around the idea of outcome independence.

First off, it doesn’t make sense for a guy with romantic needs and a desire for intimacy and attachment to model himself after a dark triad type personality. Doing so will make it impossible to deal with the emotions that we feel, and we’ll have “energy blockages” and constrictions in our thought flows. As George Orwell said, “Even a single taboo can have an all-round crippling effect upon the mind, because there is always the danger that any thought which is freely followed up may lead to the forbidden thought.” So this idea that we shouldn’t care is like holding an emotional taboo, and then we are no longer free to feel. We constrict ourselves, and are no longer authentic and spontaneously present.

I’ve been arguing against being “aloof” as being a fundamental core component of game for this reason. You can be aloof as part of push pull, but if you are not some dark triad guy, then you are just limiting your real emotions, instead of learning how to work with them to your advantage.

Also, girls have different needs for intimacy and attachment. For some, romantic triggers are real and strong. You can’t ONLY use them, but you handicap yourself if you don’t even know how to use them.

So that brings us back to outcome independence. Here is the thing: girls get turned on when you are very intensely passionate about them, and confuse your own arousal for their own. Precisely when your passion is at its strongest, she’ll feel you the most. Some of us guys use this as our main fast seduction technique, and it’s all about escalation leading to a strong sexual and romantic connection. You can’t quite call that outcome independence, can you?

Concepts such as being aloof and being outcome independent are very misleading. They are pointing to something, but it’s not the dictionary definition, and so what we mean by them is open to misinterpretation.

We really do want to fuck these girls, and sometimes more. We do. And that can be seductive to the girl, in and of itself. It can be your main seduction technique, if you know how to pull it off without appearing needy.

So outcome independence is this ineffable thing, nearly impossible to describe. It’s having just the right amount of calibration to not make the girl feel like you are being clingy, to make her feel you have options, it’s having very strong masculine boundaries and not taking shit from her in exchange for the hope of being rewarded with sex. But it isn’t about not getting a boner from looking at her cute young face and big tits.

It absolutely is not about not caring, or not wanting, or even about not being bothered if you don’t get the girl. It’s about being able to handle your emotions like a man, and not trouble her with them. Boundaries, basically – not making your emotions her responsibility or her problem. You are inviting her into your world. You won’t beg her or use emotional blackmail or make relationship assumptions or try to trade attention for sexual compliance. But you can still want her. Strongly. That’s a good thing. A seductive thing.

Basically it’s not approaching her like a son approaches his mother – looking for a source of solace. It’s approaching her like a father approaches his daughter. You can still be very bonded to her, and care about her, and will feel horrible pain if she dies. But she isn’t responsible for succor.

The saddest thing to me in all this, is that women really can get what they desire without any work.

Yes, but you have to look at the other side of the coin as well.

1) Barring some kind of mental issue, a man has more ability to increase his SMV. A woman’s value is determined primarily my genetics. That’s why it amazes me that so many chicks are fat these days- they are squandering the opportunity to exponentially increase their market value.

2) A man who is willing to put in the work can have a SMV that is exponentially higher than the value of the hottest woman in the world. Yes, men are expendable, but the fact that a high value man can have more value than the highest value woman in the world is nature’s way of counteracting this.

3) A high value man can remain high value for many, many years. A woman has a much smaller window.

Chicks either have it or they don’t. As a man you have the ability to move much higher up the ladder than your genetics might limit you to if you were born a woman. This is your “reward” for having to do the work.

I agree with all your points. The point I was trying to make is there in your comment about how many fat chicks there are now. They stay fat, because they get sexually noticed in the modern world. No work on their part. If they were pursuing something more, they would put the effort into being sexually attractive(not to be confused with slutty, they got that down). This of course goes against the societal mores that we have thanks to feminism. They also don’t get, at least completely, that their slutty looks only goes so far. Age takes away from them there too. The next thing they have to do, is to put out often enough to keep getting men’s attention. Once they are on this slope, they become less attractive to get good catches.

It’s an intentional oversimplification because all too many unproductive words have been burned on this faux-nice guy persona. As Rollo concludes, it’s just the means to discard a dead-end romantic prospect (without stating the real reasons).

In most cases, the prospective nice guy just needs to ‘bust a move’ (as the old song goes), or “next” them. Note even the Long Con guy linked above made a successful pass the next time he saw the girl, getting her into his bed. No jerk required.

I think a part of outcome independence has to do with men being agentic, and women neotenous. Women are like our children, and are not expected to be fully individuals. And they expect men to be self sufficient and to take care of our own needs.

Women only feel a desire to nurture their children. They give solace to their babies when distressed, but they aren’t useful to men for that. So it’s an emotional trick – to want something from the girl – sex – but to not want it like a child wants a nipple. You want it like a man who wants to ravage her. Any hint of wanting to assume a relationship where she has expectations of nurturing your emotional needs or of “taking care” of your sexual wants will close the clam. You have to come at her from a more aggressive place, where she isn’t doing you a favor, but instead you are leading her to being no longer able to say no to her own desires for you. And ultimately taking what you want.

How about this: nice guys actually are nice people. When they are nice, then get rejected, they don’t rant about women because they are really mysoginistic jerks, but because they are reacting rationally to an unfair outcome.

I like the direction Lad was taking this that “Nice Guy” is an oversimplification.

First, it isn’t being nice, per se.
Second, close but different point – Nice, and for that matter Jerk, has nothing to do with it.

Breaking it down, the first issue is method, the second is attraction.

On method: anyone can be a “nice” person or nice guy and its really irrelevant one way or the other to whether or not he’s attractive. It is only an issue if the person in question perceives his niceness as a means to getting laid.

Examples:
“I helped you move (because you are hot), I should get laid for that”
“I let you cry on my shoulder (because you are hot), I should get laid for that”
“I helped take care of your (alphamale’s) kid (because you are hot), I should get laid for that”
“I finished college and have my mortgage 1/2 way paid off, I am a good citizen and I should get laid for that”

Broken down, not only is this beta, it’s stupid.

Problem is: stupid or not it is pretty much the M.O. for 80% of the single male population.

Second matter is attraction. That’s really where it’s at and that’s possibly the most cornerstone issue this blog is unique for penetrating.

We can hit that one both ways. Nice is at best neutral to attraction. It can be negative. Unless one shows up to help her move and takes command of the movers, in that case …

That’s the other way to hit the same point … we would do a lot of good if all the Game bloggers took a moratorium on the word “Jerk” and began repeating over and over: Dominant Man.

That is the point.
Be ATTRACTIVE to women.

Attractive=dominant=tall=intimidating=aloof=musclar=strong=low voice=laconic=witty= … a LOT of things that satisfy hypergamy, Nice NOT being one of them and Jerk being kinda “yeah, sure, not uncasually coincidental”, but really quite besides the point.

This word used to mean something very different that it does today, and it seems like it is the women who ruined this word as well. From the linked page:

By 1926, [the word “nice”] was pronounced “too great a favorite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness.” [Fowler]

Even with the new definition used by so many women, one of it’s main uses has turned into meaning *agreeable*. Something women very much do not like in their men.

BTW, I am a bit with Juan here. Some people are just raised to be nice- I know I was. My mom was a sweetheart, my father was a kind- if strong person- who would take the shirt off his back to help someone.
How can a person raised by decent people like that not be a bit upset and angry to find that 99% of the world is for the benefit of the worst human beings?
Sometimes nice is just nice. Not weak, not stupid or sneaky, just nice.
I feel like we have surrendered something important here. If kindness is now a character flaw, we’re in big trouble. I’ve long since left the expectation of a just and kind world behind, and I accept that things are as they are. But I am angry about it. There is a better way than this return to savagery we all seem to be embracing. And whether we all want to admit it or not, we know our lives are uglier now because of it.

I feel like we have surrendered something important here. If kindness is now a character flaw

Kindness is not a character flaw. It is the kindness that is done for a woman because a man has her on the pedestal that women don’t like. It is kindness that is given with the hope of something in return. Women want a man to be kind to her on his terms, not hers. She wants to be shown kindness by a man who is not free with it. To be shown kindness by a man who is discerning, means that somehow she is worth it in his eyes. He’s made her work for something that she has never had to work for before and it’s mesmerizing.

Niceness and kindness tends to go hand in hand with other traits that are not attractive. It can be about bargaining for attraction with favors, which is not the most attractive sexual strategy. It can be about not having strong personal boundaries – a sign of being a social underling. Being kind and nice by itself, as others have insightfully pointed out, is neutral.

Successfully being a jerk is a signal of dominance. If you are being a jerk without portraying social dominance, then it’s not attractive. But being a jerk tends to go hand in hand with dominance traits.

And as others have said, you can be a dominant nice guy. But that is more advanced than being a bit of a jerk, and a nice guy has no real way to know what that means. A dominant man must be able to fight for his desires and protect his strong boundaries, and that often doesn’t come across as a nice thing to do.

“Sometimes nice is just nice. Not weak, not stupid or sneaky, just nice.”

Agreed. Some of you guys are starting to sound like the deluded Ivory Tower feminists we all like to deride. Step away from the blogosphere for a while and leave the heart of whichever metropolitan area you happen to find yourself in and look at the men around you. Most of them are nice simply because most people aren’t sociopaths. It’s not only what they were taught, it’s what comes naturally to them. There’s no devious ploy to trick women into bed with niceness. Most guys just don’t know any better. And niceness doesn’t preclude people from feeling attraction for the opposite sex.

“It is the kindness that is done for a woman because a man has her on the pedestal that women don’t like. It is kindness that is given with the hope of something in return.”

Thats a hell of alot of mind reading power to put into a womans hands. Here is the thing, people tend to do things for people they like. Whether you read that as some type of manipulation or sincere is really more likely a case of projection on the part of the receiver- especially when that person is a woman. Women are just not reliable testifiers as to what was really happening because they tend to develop self-serving rationalizations.
I have personally seen women do this. The hamster will rationalize anything simply to satiate its own needs. As someone else here said, its all about the tingle.. I have also seen these women act interested in these “nice guys” then complain that the guys was trying to manipulate her, when they were deliberately sending signals that they were interested, just to get the nice behavior.
I know alot of nice guys, I am a reformed one myself, and what guys are saying here just does not fit my observations in the field.
I do agree that these guys should just hang it up. I did many moons ago. But all the guys here buying womens rationalizations are surprising to me. I simply know women well enough at this point to not trust anything they say, as well any description of events they offer. These are the same creatures, after all, that will get drunk with a guys, flirt mercilessly, take him home and fuck his brains out, then cry rape the next day. And pretend that their behavior was completely innocent. uh-uh.

@Mentu
I think you make a bad assumption about the “nice guy’s” ability to understand his own place in the SMP. A realistic view of the SMP comes after, not before the red pill, and seems essential to your “bitter nice guy” model.

As Heartiste has noted, the nice guy rarely gets to see feral female nature, and is more likely to pedestalize, assume female virtue and invent female rationality. Without the knowledge and experience needed to hold the woman in contempt, I don’t think that’s part of his initial feelings. The nice guy doesn’t, as you argue, “know way down deep in his nice guy heart that it’s only because she’s tired of the carousel for the moment” – he doesn’t really know what the carousel is, and his first thought is “oh good, she’s finally getting serious about choosing good men.” It’s honest hope, fueled by the image of women promulgated in our current society.

Similarly, the bitterness at the end is a result of regular surprise and disappointment when the true nature of woman fails to live up to the way he imagines it. Yet still, our society works hard to ensure that he never learns from these disappointments. It’s also why so many experiences in the manosphere start with “it all makes sense now!”

I didn’t have time to read the comments but I will say that while I generally agree with the original post, I think there is some merit to the assertions described. I think they just said it wrong.

Fact is, a lot of the betas that run nice-guy game with their oneitis- they can be some of the most passive-aggressive dudes around. Fact is, their masculinity is in there somewhere, and it resents women for being too stupid to appreciate their beta-provider ways, and also they resent having to kiss ass just to get laid, when its such a pain, and then get mistreated by the chicks that never stay.

They are much more fake and disingenuous and manipulative than an Alpha/Red Pill guy. Game wields much more honesty than the Nice Guy approach, and that’s why it works. The Nice Guy approach is fake and dishonest. Women KNOW that men are much more rough, and they want that, whether they admit it or not. So when they see those sweet, accommodating church-boys, they know its bullshit, and they know that they tend to be insecure, resentful, passive aggressive pricks. They (women) also tend to be insulted by the effect of being lied to by them.

the “real men” they are talking about don’t usually have hidden agendas, and are much more forthright. This is what they mean by “comfortable in your own skin”. We “get it”. We don’t have to act or hope or beg. We don’t act like whiny bitches. We know we are sufficiently cool.

I’d even say that the “nice guys” often display more misogyny than red-pill men, by far (though I hate that word- it is a garbage word)

I think the “nice guy” game is getting a bad rap and is more effective than ever because with the rise of western feminism, women are more aggressive with their shit-testing (in their desperation to get a tingle) and so even a guy just being friendly can get disqualified, because they mistake kindness for weakness (fairly so, because kindness and weakness go together with betas) and the chicks know almost immediately they will be able to gain control with the guy if not immediately, then pretty quick. These days, we can only be friendly AFTER we establish a Dominant position.

I hate this “you’re only nice to me cuz I you want sex” thing. Like you’re a jerk because you want to have sex. Is someone a jerk if they want to eat?

However, it’s a bad thing to do to yourself. I know I want to see the real him, not an act. Heck, even whining “misogynist” rants are more fun. It’s even hard to become good friends with someone fast, as to begin with you’re so nice to each other and not all that open. So when a guy acts too nice to me right in the beginning with a rather obvious desire to lead it to sex/dating, I wonder if this is how he’s really like. If that is truly his personality (niceguy beta), it’s fine to me, but if he actually has more in his head and he’s doing the beta act because he thinks this is what the rules are, then I’d rather he got honest. The latter isn’t an alpha jerk, it’ a normal guy who isn’t a sheep. Of course, it’s not aways obvious what’s an act and what’s not.

As for women in general, I think they perceive the niceness as an act, and want the guy to “be himself”. That is, they want the guy to be comfortable with himself and therefore be confident. (If being yourself means being whiny and afraid of everything, it won’t do).

I’m interested in your paleo vs. neogamy theory. Especially living in a big blue city like NYC… everyone is conditioned to instant gratification. Low-reward lifestyle type girls seem to make great LTRs. These types of girls are less concerned about maintaining appearance (lighter on the make-up, frills, etc) but usually add a nice dosage of femininity to the mix.

I just registered a domain at paleogamy dot com for me to toss up my thoughts and allow people to kick in their critiques and comments. It just went “active” today, so there’s not much there, but there’s SO MUCH to look at.

I truly believe there is a very strong correlation between high reward actions (eating, TV, dating) and failure at long term relationships.

It falls into my “relationship economics” viewpoints, as well. High reward choices = more competition = failure at long term anything

A bit OT. I have a situation with a lady right now and due to the fact that we sort of work together, I really could use an outside opinion. Any place I can get advice?

Can be risky. Odds are that if you have to ask, you probably shouldn’t bother.

I’d say there are two broad scenarios where it can work out well. One is purely physical, fuckbuddy sex. The second scenario is when both of you are head-over-heels in love and begin a committed LTR that ends in happily ever after. In the first case, you need to be a solid player and she needs to be an honest, self-aware slut. In the second case, she needs to be genuine marriage material (even if you don’t get married).

So even while those two scenarios are possible, you need to be really honest with yourself about whether they’re really all that likely in your case. Most women are neither self-aware sluts or marriage material, and even if they are they may still not be interested in you.

A probable scenario is that she rejects you and then from that point on every interaction will be colored by her perception of you as a guy who wants to fuck her. Her hamster may blindside you with a harassment complaint 6 months down the road for completely innocuous behavior. If she doesn’t reject you, you have to be ready to deal with a situation where there’s a break-up and you’re still working together. This can work just fine, but when it doesn’t it can make your life hell.

But you could probably find some opinions over at the rooshv forums, but you’ll have to wait until 10/1 to register and I suspect most of the players will just tell you to find some other girl to bang.

Women do not want those nice guys because they are dishonest and passive-aggressive? Women do not want nice guys cos they are not attractive in the first place. Many attractive men are using and ABUSING women like they want. They are lying, manipulating, doing as they please and women are still with them. Many times they have feminine and bitchy personality, they are unemployed, etc. and women provide for them – they give them their own money or money form their nice guy orbiters.

Attractive man could do as he pleases. Unattractive man has to follow the rules and even after that he is often not good enough. This is nature.

Again – one of the biggest lies is that women are after personality in the first place. THEY ARE NOT. It helps and you could fuck it up with it as well, but attraction is something completely different. Men used to believe that it was niceness that gives them women. It proved to be wrong. Now they think that it is jerkish attitude that gives them women. FALSE. It is the quality of their genes combined with power and fame, that definitely gives them pretty women. There is no use in discussing anything to that end with women. They will NOT admit it even to themselves. Men are those ..ehm…superficial creatures and women are after..ehm..personality.

As a former nice guy myself, I can say quite confidently that the theory that nice guys are being nice in a manipulative fashion solely to get women to sleep with them is just bullshit. My niceness wasn’t a mask I put on to get girls to like me, it’s just how I was, or rather how I was socially conditioned to behave towards others. I was nice to women sure. But generally no nicer than I was to other men. Most of the other nice guys I knew were the same. Nice all around, and ignored by the ladies.

Now, as to why nice guys get so pissed off with women when they dont want anything to do with them.. well it’s quite simple. It’s because ever since we nice ones were young, we were told, often by women, that nice guys where what they wanted. Be nice, you’ll be beating women off with a stick. Not working? Be nicer! We were also told that women were rational agents, like men, and would say what they mean. Take a womans words, and her, seriously! Of course, as everyone here knows, believing either of these falsehoods is a sure path to unhappiness. And at the point where you realize that you’ve been lied to about something so fundamental to your happiness, and to your identity as a man… well, nice guy or not, you’re going to get angry, probably intensely so. And with any intense emotion, it’s going to stop you from thinking clearly, with the result that the anger will be misappropriately and/or unproductively directed.

Getting angry with women about this is largely pointless, as well as counter productive, you may as well get angry at the sun for causing sunburn. However, this sort of clarity is hard to achieve when you’re reeling from the realization that you have been raised on a steady diet of lies and your entire sexual worldview is crumbling down around you.

“Now, as to why nice guys get so pissed off with women when they dont want anything to do with them.. well it’s quite simple. It’s because ever since we nice ones were young, we were told, often by women, that nice guys where what they wanted. Be nice, you’ll be beating women off with a stick. Not working? Be nicer! We were also told that women were rational agents, like men, and would say what they mean. Take a womans words, and her, seriously!”

The sad part is, I think many women truly believe the lies they tell us as young boys. I can see the same women that told me these lies growing up had terrible relationships themselves, partly because they didn’t know what they wanted, which is why they perpetuated so much BS. They told us to be what they thought they wanted, but in the end they not only lied to us, but they deluded themselves along the way.

I think first, the connotation of nice is generally not nice at all. The betas are not nice guys. They are more sensitive and many can often be counted as good. I think women do want the good guys. They want to have kids with them, and then become bored once the kids are all in school and the beta provider isn’t needed as much. Then they want their big bad alpha back.

I think the place where you see the most men encounter the lie the way you describe it is church. That is also the most likely place to encounter the nice guy. The one who is trying to do all the right things. They are not being true to who they are naturally and are bitter because they keep getting dumped on.

I was religious when I was young, and I bought the nice guy crap hook line and sinker, and now I have the fallout to deal with after marrying a reformed slut, who turned out to not be reformed at all. I was pissed and kept taking it in the gut, because that is what nice guys do. They tend to be martyrs and don’t understand why no one cares. Its because no one likes a martyr. They come off as self serving and probably are. I don’t know where else the nice guy attitude is sold to men so hard. I know feminists like it, and there are pussy beggars that go into the feminist camps and play at it. Maybe college, but I still think Church is the largest purveyor of this lie.

Before I was religious I was pretty dominant. I find that now that I have stepped away from church and go out, that my dominance is back. I didn’t suddenly become a mean guy or a bad guy. I am just not a nice guy. I am still a good guy. One that if I am your buddy, or even your buddy’s buddy, I will help you move. I help my neighbors out, and I deal with my ex in a very different way. She gets to hear exactly what I want, and what the consequences are of me not getting it. We have a much better relationship as exes than we did as married. A nice guy would tell you that we are now great friends, but no we are not. She is an ex who betrayed our vows. We are not friends at all, but we must get along to take care of the kids.

The opposite of nice guy is not asshole. Nice guys are assholes, just like completely self absorbed dominant guys are assholes. One is just aggressive while the other is passive aggressive. Two sides of the same coin. We all know the guys that were dominant, but likable. They exist, and they are good guys.

Men were simply tricked into being nice (provide) to women in exchange for sex so they collect more resources (freebies) without having to reciprocate the sex in return. That’s all it is really stripped to the bare bone. I was a nice guy, now i’m a good guy. There’s a big difference. As a good guy I save lives as a first responder volunteer emt. As a nice guy? I’m nice to myself in going after whatever it is I want and enjoy. Every nice guy should read the book by Dr. Glover – No More Mr Nice Guy. Niceness is inherently dishonesty disguised as such. You can still remain a good guy being kind towards humanity, not a total dick masking a front.

Ted D – I see that. It didn’t come to mind, but a soccer game where it was raining and sleeting last season. I was yelled at by my ex for not sending one of the boys to walk her to her car. I was infuriated that she thought that I owed her an ounce of chivalry at this point. Walking her to her car would have made it so I had to drive roughly a mile out of my way to get that son, because she was on the other side of the park, and the way the roads work there. Self perpetuating cycle with single mothers, isn’t it?

I completely agree. That describes me well except in my case I didn’t even get angry. Who do I really have to blame except myself? The girl who friendzoned me in college? Who do I blame for catching oneitis? The church?

It is what it is. I made all those decisions myself. Some of them were made in feminized ignorance, but I’d be lying if I tried to claim I never rationalized cowardice and made excuses not to pursue girls I should have pursued. I wish I’d had it easier but truth is there were clues and opportunities to unplug from the matrix if I’d had the balls to do it. I suppose I am lucky never to have been married or divorced, though.

But just because I’m not angry doesn’t mean I’m going to keep quiet about what I’ve learned.

I really don’t like the “good vs nice” dichotomy because it’s redefining the word “nice” yet again to the mean inherently dishonest. That’s neither true or relevant. Niceness is a part of goodness. Just because some guys claim they are nice but are really being deceptive doesn’t make niceness dishonest or bad.

Not sure if this is a good place to ask this question but I think it relates. I am married and I’m making lots of changes but I’m struggling with whether I should be coming on to her and overtly trying to get her into bed (alpha) or whether that just seems beta/needy. She mostly deflects me and we haven’t had sex for 5+ weeks. Should I just say fuck it and ignore her and do my own thing and see if I get any response from her or keep after her?

One thing you notice in all these nice guys is that they have a sub conscious routine – she just has to see me , I’m a nice guy.Hence all actions come off as needy.And women just exploit them to their hearts content.

When it comes to Women and sex it’s relevant. When you meet a girl that you want to sleep with and begin doing favors for her (being nice), she sense that you want something in return (sex) and the one sided exchange creeps her out because she is not feeling the tingle for you. Once you overtly confront her about giving you the sex she friendzones you. Now if you are doing something for her out of the kindness of your heart expecting nothing in return you’re being a good guy. But if you do it expecting sexual relations in return you’re a nice guy. There’s a difference and women sense it in your vibe.

I was a nice guy. Now i’m a good guy. If I want to do something for someone through kindness, I do it expecting nothing in return.

This is also why PUAs stress being clear in your intent and congruent to who you are. I’ve gotten laid much easier and faster just by stating my desire to sleep with a girl and my attraction to her rather than waiting to see if she was feeling the same. It also saves so much time and resources being direct rather than showering her with the former. If she’s not attracted to my physical being alone and what I present, I move on. Clean and quick.

Huh. Something just occurred to me. . .I wonder if some men are nice to women they desire because they’re applying their own standards for behavioral attractiveness?

I.e., they believe women are attracted to niceness because it’s what those men themselves find attractive and important in a partner?

That would explain a lot. It might even explain some of the tendency for anglosphere women to behave so badly. They’re likewise doing what they find attractive in men in the mistaken assumption that men find it attractive as well.

I received this comment just today on my blog. The point the commenter makes fits it with your observation.

“I wonder how many bad profiles come from people projecting their own desires onto the opposite sex. Women want a man who is adventurous, goal oriented, has a mission and other interests in life, etc. They assume men want the same, so they talk about their careers and hobbies in their profiles. Men want a woman who is loyal, kind, and good-looking, so they try to present themselves that way in their profiles. If all the men and women traded profiles with each other, success at matching would probably shoot up for both.”

You should reclassify them from “Neutral” to being “fake jerk”, because that’s how a lot of people see it. In my experience, beta nice guys are often actually nice and have the good qualities women look for in spades. however, they tend to lack these “neutral” qualities and so they’re unattractive to women in general. However, the Jerks out there do have these qualities so that’s why women tend to do for them. Furthermore, when the so-called nice guys mature down the road, they start to espouse some of the jerk and neutral characteristics so women who have been burned by jerks in the past and are bitter have a heightened sensitivity to “jerk” traits. Lots of guys mistakenly think you have to be a jerk, but you really don’t. What they do need if they want to find success with women is to have some of those “neutral” traits. Personally I’d say Lazy isn’t one of them.

I agree that the approach of the nice guys towards getting sex is wrapped within a Trojan horse (not the profylactic one, obviously) but I also think that in many cases these men can be truly without any ulterior motives, simply being friendly and likable in a naively pure way, just “being themselves”. And, I have to agree with Centaur that — objectively and “ethically” viewed — there’s something rotten in that their niceness doesn’t cut it, but that’s the way it is out here.

Team Red’s point about the lack of Tingles leading to a she-synchronic orbiter status is exactly what I believe to happen. If she doesn’t fancy you, no amount of escalation is going to save you and any display of neediness is only going to exacerbate the situation. And definitely no baggaging her with excessive emotional displays as Xsplat stated.

It’s a pity that mostly the nice guy approach simply doesn’t work, especially if a more assertive or otherwise more attractive choice crosses her path. And their Oneitis/soul mate -ideology doesn’t help either. When the trap door is triggered, there is only an abyss for some time to come.

In that sense, it’s strangely tranquil to be involved in a slow-burning mode with three semi-potential prospects and probably shortly see one of them dropping out as it is her turn now to re-escalate her interest. Totally non-outcome independent (here, I said it myself) and devil-may-care but if she’s interested, I’m ready. But if not, no problem whatsoever. Has dark arts descended upon me…

(Also have to give kudos to day game posts and comments at Badger’s that I’ve read recently, they have hugely strengthened my outlook on day game and taken much of the edge off. The key is just being an attractive (I almost wrote “nice”, lol) and interesting person with whomever one initiates talking, be it woman or man. Gaming can be used to spice that up in various measures. I can take my pointers from that old, one-armed gentleman in Germany a couple of weeks ago who just engaged people (no beggaring) in a tram stop and who luckily also followed to the hauptbahnhof and helped me choose the correct train to the airport. The one time when DB was messed up with its announcements and a train late to depart…)

But on the topic of nice guys, three scenarios in an airplane (or 3 airplanes, to split hairs):

1) A late-teen couple, a Truly Nice guy and her gf next to me on a night flight home, she’s of the bossy-ish type and both clearly in love, she singing him songs etc. But due to the poison of red pill, I could only foresee the moment that she chooses to upgrade and leave the dumbstruck oneitis-infected guy in her dust. I truly wished them all the best for his sake, but I just couldn’t see a happy ending, I’m afraid. Why do my eyes hurt…

2) A day flight homebound again and on the row behind me, a (sorry) clearly American late-teenager and a ravishing Russian(?) late-twenties urban professional. Both new acquaintances and he was extremely naively (and irritatingly) blabbering loudly about everything that went past outside the window, like an overgrown child. She was enjoying it all, though, perhaps as a welcome break from the 24/7 overt come-ons from us bad men, although clearly more as him being a bit naive little brother than anything else. But should he have later nailed her, well done, kid. Heh.

3) A night flight with a 20-something Polish blonde in skimpy clothing between me in the window seat and a Polish(?) nice guy by the aisle. She was travelling alone, perhaps to his German fuck-buddy. Lucky bastard. He was a silent and very polite young guy, once excusing her for presumably touching her by mistake. (And I saw guys like that in their shorts with hotties all over sunny Warsaw. Was it Roosh who said that in the weekends EE gals spend time with their boyfriends (and families). Confirmed.) I, on the other hand was the naturally ass… cocky myself, starting by telling her scoldingly to move her designer(?) bag from next to her underneath the seat. She was watching me like she couldn’t believe that anyone would talk to her like that.

But as the evening progressed and she was reading her click-lit porn paperback with guy names like Hulk and Steve(?) which I could discern from the Polish text, which I teasingly a few times read over her shoulder, teasing her about it and her nervously moving her legs and shifting position. Night flights are dangerous as they are so potential in creating a cocoon where nothing else can penetrate (think of another place with absolutely no bl**dy cellphone reception to distract her), like a short-cut to the comfort stage in a night club but with no crappy, loud music and drunks etc. A romantic ambush scenario. She was very reserved at first but eventually warmed enough to ask me smilingly if I spoke German rather than English. A surefire IOI given the “bad” start and also the end, in a sense. So no chick crack and DHVing im Deutschen then. Should have taken my German lessons in junior high more seriously… But all this was enough to contrast victoriously a degree of assholery over nice-guy supplication, although the chick-lit and my bulging T-shirt sleeve undoubtedly helped me, heh.

What’s the moral of these vignettes? I don’t know. I’m going to bed. Gute nacht.

Outcome independence isn’t about not caring. It’s about not defining your self-worth or determining your state by the outcome. You’ll still approach the girl with passion, but if she shoots you down, shrug, that’s alright, you’re it phased as a man, you don’t doubt your self-worth based on her reaction. Oh no, your friends saw you get shot down and they thought you were a player…does their reaction phase you? Do you feel like a loser because of that judgement? Because of the outcome? When you’re approaching do you NEED it to go well?

That’s all it means. Most beta/AFC/etc guys define their self worth based on the reactions of other people and the outcome of situations they’re in. They base their worth externally. Women do this too, they look to their environment to determine their self-worth.

The alpha isn’t phased. He can get rejected by a girl or fail a business venture or lose a sports game and he just keeps going, trusting that he’s awesome and that he’ll overcome adversity and succeed and that his natural awesomeness will come through and eventually he’ll be “Winning”.

When the PUA community first started throwing the term around there was a lot of confusion with newbies and they thought it meant to not bother showing any interest or passion or make any effort or moves etc.

*meant to contrast the beta/AFC/women basing their worth and how they should feel about themselves externally by writing that alphas base it internally but lost the sentence to my iPhone. It’s a simple distinction but it underlies a lot of game concepts.

Also, whoever said something about re-defining or reclaiming through renaming these ideas by using a term like Dominant Man vs. jerk/niceguy also had a great point.

I like to call it being a Sincere Man. Honestly being dominant, as per your ability, and doing/saying what you desire without apology, lest you are wrong.

I clicked on Geishakate’s link and she had an excerpt from Shakespeare I thought was an excellent reminder of how one should think, concerning Laertes speaking to his Son on how to be, if I’m not mistaken. The “to thine own self be true”, speech.

What’s confusing for me is that my behavior is made wrong regardless of being nice or a jerk, however is rewarded sexually with absolutely no relation to how nice or mean I am (using those words how I’d expect nice or mean to play out).

So when I’m a nice guy, I’m creepy, and when I’m an asshole, I’m handsome. That’s pretty much what I’ve come to learn. “You are a mean man”, “I just want you to be nice”, “Why do you make me so angry!?”, “You’re awful!”, can be translated basically as “I will give you a blow job in an hour, however for now I want to see how you react to me saying these things to you,” or “I am not going to have sex with you because you are mean” which can change into “I just had sex with you because you were being nice” which means “He wasn’t as mean as when he was really mean earlier, but he isn’t nice like when he complimented me and I suddenly felt like I was trapped and rejected him by witholding affection because he was creepy, but I want him to be nice, though I think he’s mean, because I deserve to be with a nice person who treats me well like a woman and understands me, and if he just does x, y, or z I’ll forgive him, but he has to apologize, and if he apologizes, I am not going to have sex with him, because he’s an asshole, but because he won’t apologize, and is fucking angry because I’m being a crazy indecisive bitch, I am going to reward him sexually, because I just want things to be ok, and maybe it will be different this time, because now we haven’t had sex for like two days, and I am horny, and my period starts soon, and my mood is crazy, and I just want to fuck him, and I hate cuddling, why won’t he cuddle with me, what an asshole, I can’t believe he tried to cuddle with me, and we didn’t even have sex, because he’s gross, and I want to be with a better person, because it’s what I deserve, so I’m going to tell him about it, and then I’m going to do everything I say I won’t, and it will confuse him, and I’ll have power then, because I deserve to be treated a certain way, and even though I’m giving him pleasure, I’m the one who is in control, because I’m letting him do what he wants with me, and he is sexy, because we have this special connection, and therefore this, that, and another way of doing whatever it is that is exactly predictable as he explains to me is what I’m going to do, because I can, and then I’ll make him feel bad about it, because we’re no longer together, and it’s his fault that I am this way, and I had a bad childhood, and I’m a feminist, and due to that anything I feel is right and in no way are my actions reflective of my character, and if I continue to reward him for poor behavior, he’ll become a better man one day, and remember that I was right…..

tldr. I’m not sure how women rationalize the bullshit, that confuses me so much, regarding my behavior and their own. But, I think what I was trying to sum up was that experientially speaking, Nice = Creep & Jerk = Handsome. I Want To Be With A Nice Guy = I am with you, who isn’t “nice. etc…However, further than that, being Sincere, whether nice or an asshole, gets you what you’d want regardless, as sincerity naturally promotes a better, and easily identifiable simplicity, regarding what and who one is, and how one goes about being such a way.

I think alot of nice guys fail in the same way I have failed before, where I thought too much about the girl and did “the right thing” in my mind, which was based on god knows what, as most of the “nice guy” behaviors are socially taught in an unspoken way, and I’m just gonna stop as I’ve already ranted too much.

That was a nice little portrayal into the Hamster’s head and a perfect example of why it’s best not to try making sense of any one woman or action you experience with them. The absolute best thing to do is concern yourself with you and only you, and not pay any attention to all that noise you just attempted to interpret. It’s a code and not meant to be translated for your understanding. There are fundamentals behind the science but interpreting the Hamster isn’t one of them. Who knows wtf is going on up there, it’ll just drive you crazy trying to figure it out.

I’ve been there and done that in the same situation where you’re quite literally left there scratching your head saying “WTF Really?” The absolute best thing to do is to just live your life while pursuing your interests and not invest with a woman unless she fully invests back. You only put in the energy and attention that meets at the same level of what she’s putting in. The second there’s an imbalance and your investing more, sense it and shift your energy that you would’ve put into her into someone else or yourself. Quite literally, you need to question if the exchange is fair and balanced always. You need to be a bit selfish for awhile in that you only care about the short term if it benefits you. As you get older you become wiser and it gets easier to not have feelings for women the way young guys do. It’s all a part of unplugging and realizing the ugly truths we were brainwashed to believe through this femcentric society. You still be a good guy and inherently kind to everyone giving value to them if you want ,but at the same time expecting nothing in return.

When it comes to women themselves, realize that the vast majority are living in a realm with instant gratification and they are getting all the attention in their digital world they could ever want. They are all people too, but plugged into a different world that is all about the material bullshit and drama they absorb in the media and feel the need to inject into their own personal lives. The toxicity of our culture has poisoned them with Feminism, Obesity, People Magazine, Real Housewives, The Bachelorette, Jersey Shore, and the list goes on. At 34 years old I haven’t found a good woman worthy enough to marry and it has nothing to do with my looks or game. I’m just a tough qualifier in the sense that other than looks, most women today just aren’t that attractive as people. I see so many of my friends that settled down are unhappy because they didn’t chose a really good woman. It’s quite literally aged them and I still look and feel great dating women 10 years younger because the SMP is in my favor.

Anyways, Sometimes you’re flush and sometimes you’re bust, and when you’re up, it’s never as good as it seems, and when you’re down, you never think you’ll be up again, but life goes on..

And, not trying to be rude, I don’t see why is wisdom equivocal with acceptance? I mean, it shouldn’t be. Soloman was the wisest of them all for a reason, million concubines and all, right?

Because he accepted how things were. But that doesn’t change anything, and isn’t the point (if there even is any point at all left in the existential crisis of a comment) to evolve? How can we evolve if we just continue to accept things as they are, find ulterior ways around them, via accepting how they are?

Stupid questions, in a way; I feel like I was more intelligent in high school at this stage. What’s bothersome is that these feelings will not disappear, they will like all others be accepted, ingrained, and my perception will be altered therefrom.

Anyways, “Sometimes you’re flush and sometimes you’re bust, and when you’re up, it’s never as good as it seems, and when you’re down, you never think you’ll be up again, but life goes on.”

Thanks. I think it’s good that you wrote about this topic by the way. I know that for me, one of the things that really helped force the red pill down my throat was seeing a feminist response to the nice guy dilemma which was similar to the one you mentioned above.

My thought at the time was:

Great, not only do women not find me attractive because of my niceness (despite the fact they say it’s what they want), but now they’re blaming ME for this, saying that my innate and genuine concern, respect and caring for them as human beings is just an act to get in their pants?

Anyway, nowadays my views are a little more reality based, and a little less puppy dogs, cotton candy and unicorns shitting rainbows. Hopefully reading posts like this will give other nice guys the same realisation that they need to make an attitudinal adjustment.

The sad part is, I think many women truly believe the lies they tell us as young boys. I can see the same women that told me these lies growing up had terrible relationships themselves, partly because they didn’t know what they wanted, which is why they perpetuated so much BS. They told us to be what they thought they wanted, but in the end they not only lied to us, but they deluded themselves along the way

I have three working theories as to why women who demonstrate otherwise with their actions say they like nice guys.
1. They don’t understand themselves, or their desires well enough to actually know what they want, so they just say they like nice guys, probably without even understanding what they mean by the term. I think this is essentially what you’re saying.
2. As discussed on a recent post at Heartiste, they deliberately lie about it in order to extract resources from men without having to provide sexual access in return.
3. They feel pressure to not be honest about wanting dominant men because of our feminist culture which attempts to portray woman as not just being equal, but also to being almost equivalent to a man. Women should be strong, empowered, confident, yadda, yadda, and admitting to wanting to submit to a stronger man is shameful and embarrassing to such a woman.

I haven’t really bothered to examine any of these theories in any further detail to see if they fall over though, because at the moment, for me the point is academic. The why is less important than the what, and the what demonstrates that you can’t take a womans words seriously in the same way as you would a mans.

I completely agree. That describes me well except in my case I didn’t even get angry. Who do I really have to blame except myself? The girl who friendzoned me in college? Who do I blame for catching oneitis? The church?
It is what it is. I made all those decisions myself. Some of them were made in feminized ignorance, but I’d be lying if I tried to claim I never rationalized cowardice and made excuses not to pursue girls I should have pursued. I wish I’d had it easier but truth is there were clues and opportunities to unplug from the matrix if I’d had the balls to do it. I suppose I am lucky never to have been married or divorced, though.
But just because I’m not angry doesn’t mean I’m going to keep quiet about what I’ve learned.

Well, to be accurate I didn’t get angry either, until at least that moment when I finally realized that I’d been lied to all those years. At that point I got very angry. But there are certain times when anger can be useful, and other times when it isn’t, and in those cases it’s only detrimental. So I lost the anger.

As to the matter of blame, I think you certainly could blame the people who told you harmful lies with the voice of authority. They would certainly deserve it. Not that it would do you any good though, they are not likely to accept responsibility, nor are they likely to change.

The best path is what you have done, take responsibility for the mistakes that were your own, and learn from those mistakes so you will make better decisions in the future.

Outcome independence isn’t about not caring. It’s about not defining your self-worth or determining your state by the outcome. You’ll still approach the girl with passion, but if she shoots you down, shrug, that’s alright, you’re it phased as a man, you don’t doubt your self-worth based on her reaction.

PUA jargon and tactics get lots of hate and legitimate criticism, both for its tendency to use nerdy terms and concepts like “bitch shield” and “shit test” and for the tendency to objectify women “so I opened a set with an HB8 and 2 HB7s…”, but even the legitimate critics often miss the fact that treating the whole thing like a game is one of the best ways to establish internal outcome independence and psychologically prepare for failure and rejection.

I recall reading advice for women, written by a linguist with 1970s and 1980s male-dominated office environments in mind, to observe how the men adopted a sports frame as a metaphor for their interaction with other co-workers. Detaching personal self-worth from terms like “failure” was one of the key side-effects of this frame.

It’s helpful to understand to what semantics are really referring. What a woman means by “nice guy” is boring and sexually non-arousing. It’s not a commentary at all on the guy’s character,integrity or any other personality traits. Therefore, when a woman says “You’re a nice guy, but I think we work better as friends,” it allows her to let the guy down gently and be magnanimous about the rejection. And when a woman says “nice guys” are the real jerks, it’s her hamster saying that those guys don’t care about her at all but just want to use her for sex. Maybe the “nice guys” in question just see her as a piece of ass and they are trying to “nice” their way into her pants, and maybe they really do see her as girlfriend material and actually want something beyond sex with her. But she’s not a mindreader, so it’s really just a hamster rationalization for preferring the bad boy, who is unapologetic about his intentions and therefore more respectful to her in his honesty. Bad boys rarely want to settle down into monogamy and exclusivity.

If “nice guy” means strong character and integrity and living life by the Golden Rule, then I don’t see anything wrong with being a genuinely nice guy, as long as you’re not a doormat that puts the pussy on a pedestal.